An Australian author-poet and advocate for West Papuan independence has condemned a reported threat against the life of a New Zealand hostage pilot, Philip Mehrtens, held by Papuan liberation fighters and appealed to them to “keep Philip safe”.
Jim Aubrey, a human rights activist who has campaigned globally on freedom struggles in East Timor, West Papua and Tibet, declared such a threat was “not in his name”.
In a statement in English and Bahasa today, Aubrey said he would never support a “senseless and stupid act” such as killing pilot Mehrtens, who has been held captive in the remote Papuan highlands for more than three months since February 7.
A plea to keep the NZ hostage pilot safe. Pictured is a rebel leader, Egianus Kogoya. Image: jimaubrey.com
“Any acts of braggadocio and careless support by any West Papuan group and/or solidarity members of this current threat, in thinking that international governments are going to suddenly act with governance of care and respect are baseless and profoundly naive,” he said.
“The list of criminal accessories to Indonesia’s six decades of crimes against humanity is very long . . . long enough for anyone to know that they do not care.”
Aubrey said he believed that a third party, “such as an appropriate minister from Papua New Guinea who has previous and ongoing affiliation with OPM, should act as the intermediary on the ground to resolve the crisis”.
He called for immediate withdrawal of the more than 21,000 Indonesian security forces from the Melanesian region that shares an 820 km-long land border with Papua New Guinea.
“Included in this approach is the immediate cessation of all Indonesian air and ground combat operations and the immediate exit of Indonesian defence and security forces from all conflict regions in West Papua,” he said.
Other West Papuan activists and advocates have also criticised the reported threat.
According to Reuters news agency and reports carried by the ABC in Australia and RNZ today, the West Papuan rebels had threatened to shoot 37-year-old Mehrtens if countries did not comply with their demand to start independence talks within two months.
Citing a new video released yesterday by the West Papua National Liberation Army-OPM (TPNPB-OPM) yesterday, the news reports said the fighters, who want to free Papua from Indonesian rule, kidnapped Mehrtens after he landed a commercial plane in the mountainous area of Nduga. The guerillas set the aircraft ablaze.
In the new video, a Mehrtens holds the banned Morning Star flag, a symbol of West Papuan independence, and is surrounded by Papuan fighters brandishing what one analyst said were assault rifles manufactured in Indonesia.
New Zealand pilot Philip Mehrtens, flying for Susi Air, has been held hostage by the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) since February 7. Image: Jubi TV screenshot APR
Mehrtens is seen talking to the camera, saying the pro-independence rebels want countries other than Indonesia to engage in dialogue on Papuan independence.
“If it does not happen within two months then they say they will shoot me,” Mehrtens said in the video, which was shared by West Papuan rebel spokesperson Sebby Sambom.
The video was verified by Deka Anwar, an analyst at the Jakarta-based Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict (IPAC), according to the news agency reports.
A spokesperson for New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in an e-mail to Reuters today that they were aware of the photos and videos circulating.
“We’re doing everything we can to secure a peaceful resolution and Mr Mehrtens’ safe release,” the spokesperson added.
Indonesia’s military spokesperson Julius Widjojono said today that the military would continue to carry out “measureable actions” in accordance with standard operating procedure.
The Indonesian Foreign Ministry did not respond to requests for comment.
Prioritising ‘peaceful negotiations’
Indonesian authorities have previously said they were prioritising peaceful negotiations to secure the release of the Susi Air pilot, but have struggled to access the isolated and rugged highland terrain.
A low-level but increasingly deadly battle for independence has been waged in the resource-rich Papua region — now split into five provinces — ever since it was controversially brought under Indonesian control in a vote overseen by the United Nations in 1969.
The conflict has escalated significantly since 2018, with pro-independence fighters mounting deadlier and more frequent attacks, largely because they have managed to procure more sophisticated weapons.
Rumianus Wandikbo of the TPNPB — the armed wing of the Free Papua Movement — called on countries such as New Zealand, Australia and Western nations to kickstart talks with Indonesia and the pro-independence fighters, reports Reuters.
“We do not ask for money…We really demand our rights for sovereignty,” he said in a separate video.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The future of warfare is being shaped by computer algorithms that are assuming ever-greater control over battlefield technology. The war in Ukraine has become a testing ground for some of these weapons, and experts warn that we are on the brink of fully autonomous drones that decide for themselves whom to kill.
This week, we revisit a story from reporter Zachary Fryer-Biggs about U.S. efforts to harness gargantuan leaps in artificial intelligence to develop weapons systems for a new kind of warfare. The push to integrate AI into battlefield technology raises a big question: How far should we go in handing control of lethal weapons to machines?
In our first story, Fryer-Biggs and Reveal’s Michael Montgomery head to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Sophomore cadets are exploring the ethics of autonomous weapons through a lab simulation that uses miniature tanks programmed to destroy their targets.
Next, Fryer-Biggs and Montgomery talk to a top general leading the Pentagon’s AI initiative. They also explore the legendary hackers conference known as DEF CON and hear from technologists campaigning for a global ban on autonomous weapons.
We close with a conversation between host Al Letson and Fryer-Biggs about the implications of algorithmic warfare and how the U.S. and other leaders in machine learning are resistant to signing treaties that would put limits on machines capable of making battlefield decisions.
Like Cicero in the Roman Republic, there are always a handful of chroniclers who can see and articulate clearly the social, cultural, and political realities of empires in terminal decline. They call out the bankruptcy of an inept and corrupt ruling class, blinded by hubris, as well as a populace that has checked out of civic life and is entranced by bread and circus spectacles. In his trilogy Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, Chambers Johnson does a masterful job of showing how and why we are disintegrating. So does Andrew Bacevich, who, in his newest book of essays, On Shedding an Obsolete Past: Bidding Farewell to the American Century, writes about the debacles that have beset the American empire since the Vietnam War, a conflict he fought in as a young army officer. Bacevich warns that Americans’ inability to be self-critical, to dissect and understand the litany of disasters that have followed on the heels of Vietnam, including decades of fruitless warfare in the Middle East, will have terrible consequences for us and much of the rest of the globe.
Studio Production: David Hebden, Cameron Granadino Post-Production: Adam Coley Audio Post-Production: Tommy Harron
Transcript
Chris Hedges: At the end of any empire, there are always a handful of chroniclers who, like Cicero in the ancient Roman Republic, see clearly the looming disintegration of empire. They call out the bankruptcy of an inept and corrupt ruling class blinded by hubris, as well as a populace that has checked out of civic life and is entranced by the bread and circus of spectacles. Chambers Johnson in his trilogy on American empire: Blowback; The Sorrows of Empire; and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic does a masterful job of showing how and why we are disintegrating.
So does Andrew Bacevich, who in his newest book of essays, On Shedding an Obsolete Past: Bidding Farewell to the American Century, writes about the debacles that have beset the American empire since the Vietnam War, a conflict he fought in as a young Army officer. He warns that our inability to be self-critical, to dissect and understand the litany of disasters that have followed on the heels of Vietnam, including the 20 years of fruitless warfare in the Middle East, will have terrible consequences for us and much of the rest of the globe.
Joining me to discuss his new book is Andrew Bacevich, the president and co-founder of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. A West Point graduate and retired Army colonel. He is also professor emeritus of History and International Relations at Boston University. His other books include The New American Militarism; The Limits of Power; America’s War for the Greater Middle East; and After The Apocalypse: America’s Role in a World Transformed.
Andrew, I want to begin with what you call the Church of America the Redeemer. You say this is a virtual congregation, albeit one possessing many of the attributes of a more traditional religion. The church has its own holy scripture, authenticated on July 4, 1776 at a gathering of 56 prophets, and it has its own saints, prominent among them, the good Thomas Jefferson, chief author of the sacred text – Not the bad Thomas Jefferson, who owned and impregnated enslaved people – Talk about the Church of America the Redeemer, and what happens when you don’t pay fealty to that church?
Andrew Bacevich: Well, if you don’t pay fealty to it, I think you probably get ignored and end up being somewhat frustrated, which would be, I think, the way I would describe myself with regard to my writing efforts. But what’s the Church of the Redeemer? Well, I guess the essay itself is another way of approaching and commenting on the notion of American exceptionalism, which rests on a conviction that we are, indeed, the chosen people, the new chosen people, and as the new chosen people, that we have a divinely inspired mission. And the mission is to transform the world in our own image. This, I think, is something that, in many respects, we can trace back to the founding of the republic, even to the colonial era. I think it is something that really achieved maturity beginning in 1945 and has persisted down to the present moment despite the accumulation of evidence that says that we’re not exceptional, and that the prophets that we look to in many respects have feet of clay.
Chris Hedges: I mean, 1945, you could argue that after World War II, of course, in many ways, at least for some parts of the world, and particularly Europe, America was the redeemer. And yet, since Vietnam, this kind of rhetoric is at complete odds with the reality of how we project power and what we do in the world. And I want you just to address that disconnect between the language we use to describe ourselves to ourselves and what’s actually happening.
Andrew Bacevich: What a great question, and I can’t give you a satisfactory answer. The persistence of myth when facts and reality contradict the myth is a bit of a puzzle. You’ve put your finger, I think, on the key point, and that is that even if at the end of World War II, and arguably for the next couple of decades, it would be at least plausible to be patting ourselves on the back as the savior of the world, that notion has become implausible since Vietnam. There was an effort to revive it in the aftermath of 9/11 when George W. Bush embarked upon his great crusade, the one that we called global war on terrorism. Certainly the expectations that informed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 traced their origin back to the claims made at the end of World War II and early in the Cold War. But we saw in Iraq that the facts simply demolished those expectations.
So you put your finger on the main question, I think: why does the myth persist? Again, I don’t have a very good answer, although I think that, to some degree, it persists because those who wield power in the United States, whether we’re talking political power, economic power, those who wield power have an interest in sustaining the myth. Because as long as the myth persists, so does their elevated status.
Chris Hedges: Well, if their reference point is Vietnam or the 20-year debacle in the Middle East, the myth itself implodes. And so, in a way, it has to be anchored in the past, because it’s impossible to anchor it in the present.
Andrew Bacevich: But in a way it doesn’t implode. I mean, it ought to implode.
Chris Hedges: Right.
Andrew Bacevich: Let’s talk about the Afghanistan War. Longest war in our country’s history – Not the biggest, by any means, if we look at the number of Americans and other than Americans killed, wounded. The most expensive, I think, arguably, in terms of dollar cost. 20-year effort, ends in abject failure. And one might say, well, obviously, clearly then the nation is going to step back and reflect deeply on the cause and consequences of this failure. But as you know and I know, that didn’t happen. I mean, it is astonishing how quickly both our political elites in Washington and the country more broadly have turned aside from Afghanistan. And now today, as you and I speak, we’re all gung-ho to wage a proxy war, underline a proxy war in Ukraine, as if the debacle of Afghanistan, the parallel debacle of Iraq, never happened.
Chris Hedges: Well, there was a story, I can’t remember if it was Churchill or somebody went to Paris after World War II, and the French were talking about lessons of the war, and it was all about World War I, which of course they won. But it has something of that kind of utter denial of reality because reality is just so unpalatable. And I wonder if that’s a feature of all late empires, where no one’s held accountable, there’s no self reflection, and it’s a collective self-delusion. Does that characterize… I think you could argue it characterizes any late empire.
Andrew Bacevich: Yeah, I’m not a student of comparative empires, but if we take the little I know of a couple of cases, one would be France. France, in the wake of World War II, determined to cling to its empire in Indochina and in Algeria, an effort that came nowhere near to succeeding and simply exacted great costs, both of France and of these former colonial territories. That was an empire that didn’t learn, that was an empire that didn’t read the writings on the wall.
I think you can say the same thing about the Brits. Certainly, in the wake of World War II, British leaders recognized that the pre-war British Empire was unsustainable, but they exerted themselves to try to maintain a privileged status. And that didn’t work. And I think here the most illustrative case is the Suez crisis of 1956, when the Brits tried to reassert control of the Suez Canal, and more broadly were attempting to reassert indirect control of Egypt, and I suppose more broadly of the Middle East. And of course that flopped terribly. So yeah, it’s not just us. I think you probably can make a case that empires cling to the past even when the signs clearly indicate that there’s no way to resuscitate the past.
Chris Hedges: I want to ask you a question as a historian. You quote the great historian, Carl Becker, “For all practical purposes, history is for us, and for the time being, what we know it to be.” And then you go on and say, “The study of the past may reveal truths, Becker allowed, but those truths are contingent, incomplete, invalid only for the time being. Put another way, historical perspectives conceived in what Becker termed the ‘specious present’ have a sell-by date.” Can you explain that idea?
Andrew Bacevich: Well, and that’s not the past that Americans want to conjure up. We want to be able to pick the parts of the past that are relevant. I think, absolutely, the classic example of this is the run-up to World War II, the narrative that everybody knows: the failed effort to appease Hitler, American reluctance to intervene in the European war, once it began, on behalf of Great Britain. These are the shake-your-finger lessons that have persisted since then down to the present moment.
Another way, I think, of saying that is that our prevailing notions of history are exceedingly narrow and exceedingly selective. And basically the process of selection is one that aims to reassure ourselves. To reassure ourselves that the myths that we believe in can be sustained. That disappointments, whether it’s the disappointment of the Vietnam War, whether it’s the disappointment of the Afghanistan war, that those are mere merely passing moments, and that if we exert ourselves, if we try hard enough, if we send our soldiers off to enough wars, that we can somehow turn this thing around. I think that’s very much what’s going on with regard to the US proxy participation in the Ukraine War, that, by God, if we can defeat Russia, then we’ll be back on top. We’ll be number one. Let the Chinese see what we’ve done to the Russians, and then let’s see what they say at that time. But it all involves this… Recognize the truths, the realities that I want to and ignore the ones that I find inconvenient.
Chris Hedges: You write that the process of formulating new history to supplant the old is organic rather than contrived – And this is the point I found really interesting – It comes from the bottom up, not the top down. What do you mean by that?
Andrew Bacevich: Well, I think I was suggesting what it ought to be. It ought to be organic, that we ought to recognize voices that, perhaps, have been ignored or taken less than seriously. I think here an example is the 1619 Project, although it cuts both ways. I’m a critic of the 1619 Project. I think that the effort to – And people will accuse me of being unfair to the supporters of that project – But I think the notion of contriving a new narrative of American history that basically revolves around the African American experience goes too far. That doesn’t say that it’s wrong. I think it’s not wrong. And I think the positive aspect of the 1619 Project – And it’s achieving great success in that regard – Is that it does belatedly provide due acknowledgement of the place of Black Americans in our history, going all the way back to the founding of Anglo America in the early part of the 17th century.
So Black Americans are no longer a footnote. They’re no longer the people we say, well, we credit them for the creation of jazz. Or, wasn’t Jackie Robinson a wonderful guy? That they now become integral to the larger narrative. I guess my problem is that integral to the narrative should not mean taking over the narrative, that there is another story. And I think a proper appreciation of history would certainly acknowledge the role of African Americans since the founding of Anglo America. But also, we have to keep all the white guys in, and all the white women, and all the ethnic groups, and everybody else. It’s a complex story and we shouldn’t try to oversimplify it.
Chris Hedges: Well, I don’t want to get into a debate on the 1619 Project. However, it’s not just about Blacks or African Americans, it’s about the institution of slavery as a social and an economic force and the reverberations of that institution, which white historians have sought to erase.
Andrew Bacevich: Well, I’ll disagree with you a little bit. I don’t think they’ve sought to – Well, they tried to erase it until sometime in the 20th century, then I think it was acknowledged, but it tended to be treated as a peripheral issue. And the 1619 – Maybe I’m wrong – The 1619 Project says, no, it’s not peripheral, it’s central. And frankly, I’m willing to acknowledge central. I’m not willing to acknowledge dominant.
Chris Hedges: Well, but it took until the ’50s till you got historians like Kenneth Stamp, Leon Litwack –
Andrew Bacevich: John Whit Franklin.
Chris Hedges: And then you had W. E. B. Du Bois, of course, but Du Bois was kind of pushed out of that narrative.
I want to talk about this, of what you call the present American moment. And you raised this question about, when it’s clear that a war is a mistake – We know from the Afghan papers that the policy makers and the military leaders understood that they were never going to quote-unquote, “win,” in Afghanistan. The same thing that they understood, we know, from the Vietnam War through the Pentagon Papers. But you ask why those in power insist on its perpetuation regardless of the costs and consequences. And that’s a question I want you to try and answer.
Andrew Bacevich: It’s because they’re in power. They want to remain in power. And if George W. Bush had gone on national TV circa what, 2004, 2005, he went on TV and said, I got a great idea. It’s called the surge, and we’re going to persist. If he’d gone on TV and said, boy, we screwed up. This is a disaster, and I’m responsible for this disaster. Well, this would’ve been an act of great courage on his part, but it would’ve been quite surprising, because President George W. Bush, like every other president down to and including President Biden, sought power, achieved power, and will cling to power as long as possible. Not because they’re evil people, but because that’s the way politics works. And I think that’s one of the reasons why there’s so much dishonesty that permeates our politics, because the perceived penalties of honesty are unacceptable.
Chris Hedges: But why does Obama perpetuate it? He didn’t start it. It wasn’t his war.
Andrew Bacevich: Well [laughs], we’d have to ask him, I guess, but I think my answer is that we see frequent references to the president of the United States as the most powerful person on the planet. I think that’s wildly misleading. Whoever is US president actually wields pretty limited power. You and I could make a pretty long list of the things that presidents can’t do, might want to do but are unable to do because they are constrained. Constrained by circumstance globally, constrained by other nations, but they’re also constrained by circumstances at home.
And I think President Obama, who I hold in high regard, was an acutely intelligent politician who understood the constraints that he labored under and, to a large degree, accepted them. Now, we might regret that. We might say, God, I wish Obama had pushed harder to bring about the kind of change that he seemed to want. But I think that, at the end of the day, whether ’cause he was being advised or whether this was his own thinking, he conformed, he went along, he accepted the constraints. And I think that’s a reality of American politics. I suppose it’s a reality of politics wherever you are.
Chris Hedges: You draw parallels between the Vietnam War and Iraq. I’m just going to run through them quickly and then have you comment. You say both were avoidable, both turned out to be superfluous. Both were costly distractions. In each instance, political leaders in Washington and senior commanders in the field collaborated in committing grievous blunders. Thanks to that incompetence, both devolved into self-inflicted quagmires. Both conflicts left behind a poisonous legacy of unrest, rancor, and bitterness – Although perhaps more so Vietnam. And finally, with both political and military elites alike, preferring simply to move on, neither war has received a proper accounting. To what extent has that inability to learn the lessons of Vietnam contributed to the debacles that we have repeated since Vietnam?
Andrew Bacevich: I think to a very great extent. Now, I wouldn’t have said that, I think, 20 or 25 years ago. My own appreciation of Vietnam has substantially evolved, so that several of those items that you ticked off reflect the position I have more or less recently come to. When I was a serving soldier, very much accepting the framework of the Cold War as the proper lens to examine and think about international politics, it was possible to conclude that the Vietnam War was necessary. If you took seriously what turns out to be bogus, but if you took seriously the notion that there was this thing called monolithic communism that posed a threat to the well-being of the United States and of our allies, then you can make the case that it was necessary for the US to employ US forces to try to prevent the collapse of the Republic of Vietnam.
From where we are today, all of that is utterly bogus, and really makes you want to weep. I mean, that our leaders fell for such a load of crap, sold it to the American people, who bought it. We’re conscious of the anti-war movement. Okay, let’s be conscious of the number of American soldiers who were told to go fight in Southeast Asia and said, yes sir, yes sir, and followed orders. 58,000 people were killed, and we’re just talking the Americans. The number of Vietnamese killed, of course, was orders of magnitude greater, and for what? For nothing.
I’m meandering here, but I guess my point is that sometimes, at least for somebody like me, it takes a while to come to a proper understanding of the event and to put it in a historical context that is, if not entirely true, at least closer to the truth than what back in the day we were getting from Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara and Dean Ruskin and William Westmoreland. But sometimes it takes a while to figure all that out.
Chris Hedges: Well, but those who do figure it out at the time – And I think this really represents your marginalization – Those who do figure it out in the moment and decry it are pushed to the margins.
Andrew Bacevich: I think that’s true. I think that’s true. The power of the establishment, the influence of the establishment, the power of those myths that we referred to a little while ago, makes it very difficult to advance an alternative point of view and have it be embraced and accepted. And I think we have seen that over and over and over again with the most pernicious results.
Chris Hedges: Well, you have a media that won’t disseminate it. We’re getting to the end, and I just want to read a passage you write towards the end of the book, “I am by temperament a conservative, and a traditionalist wary of revolutionary movements that more often than not end up being hijacked by nefarious plotters more interested in satisfying their own ambitions than pursuing high ideals. Yet, even I am prepared to admit that the status quo appears increasingly untenable. Incremental change will not suffice. The challenge of the moment is to embrace radicalism without succumbing to irresponsibility.” Can you explain what you mean by all that?
Andrew Bacevich: [Laughs] I mean, I guess the pertinent question is what does this radicalism look like?
Chris Hedges: Well, exactly.
Andrew Bacevich: What does this radical –
Chris Hedges: Yeah, there you go.
Andrew Bacevich: I’m not sure I know, Chris. It took me a while to reach the conclusion that incremental change just isn’t going to hack it. I think that probably it was the Trump period that brought me to that conclusion. I’ve never believed that Trump himself is as important as the many in the mainstream media seem to want to pretend. But I think that the Trump moment, this nationalist populist reaction from the right signals that the republic is in serious danger. And I don’t know that incrementalism – Joe Biden is an incrementalist – I don’t know that incrementalist offers a sufficient response to what we experienced when Trump was riding high. But I don’t have the six-point plan that is going to move the country back in a better direction. I wish I did, but I don’t.
Chris Hedges: Well, doesn’t it look something like FDR, the New Deal?
Andrew Bacevich: Well… I don’t know. I mean, yes in the sense that’s, in my estimation, I think in many people’s estimation, he was far and away the most effective reformer of the 20th century down to the present moment. And that he himself was not a radical. In many respects he was a reformer. He had to reform the system in order to save the system. And he did that with not perfect skill, but very considerable skill. On the other hand, Chris, it’s not 1933. We are not the nation that we were in 1933 – 1933 being the year that the New Deal began. And so, as much as I admire what Roosevelt accomplished, and I genuinely do, I’m not sure that the New Deal actually serves as a proper blueprint.
Chris Hedges: Well, because we’re post-industrial –
Andrew Bacevich: Primarily in the realm –
Chris Hedges: We’re a post-industrial society. That would be a big difference.
Andrew Bacevich: That’s one big difference, I think. And also, the New Deal was designed to benefit white people.
Chris Hedges: Well, yes.
Andrew Bacevich: It was a predominantly white society, and Roosevelt treated African Americans as an afterthought. They were not excluded from the benefits of the New Deal, but certainly African Americans – Or, we say African Americans, or Brown Americans, or Native Americans, or Asian Americans, their interest did not figure in a large way in Roosevelt’s agenda. And today, a reform program would have to be far more inclusive, I think, than was the New Deal.
Chris Hedges: Great. That was Andrew Bacevich, On Shedding an Obsolete Past: Bidding Farewell to the American Century. I want to thank The Real News Network and its production team: Cameron Granadino, Adam Coley, David Hebden, Darian Jones, and Kayla Rivara. You can find me at chrishedges.substack.com.
This week the Five Eyes alliance — an intelligence alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and the United States — announced its investigation into a China-backed threat targeting US infrastructure.
Using stealth techniques, the attacker — referred to as “Volt Typhoon” — exploited existing resources in compromised networks in a technique called “living off the land”.
Microsoft made a concurrent announcement, stating the attackers’ targeting of Guam was telling of China’s plans to potentially disrupt critical communications infrastructure between the US and Asia region in the future.
This comes hot on the heels of news in April of a North Korean supply chain attack on Asia-Pacific telecommunications provider 3CX. In this case, hackers gained access to an employee’s computer using a compromised desktop app for Windows and a compromised signed software installation package.
The Volt Typhoon announcement has led to a rare admission by the US National Security Agency that Australia and other Five Eyes partners are engaged in a targeted search and detection scheme to uncover China’s clandestine cyber operations.
Such public admissions from the Five Eyes alliance are few and far between. Behind the curtain, however, this network is persistently engaged in trying to take down foreign adversaries. And it’s no easy feat.
Let’s take a look at the events leading up to Volt Typhoon — and more broadly at how this secretive transnational alliance operates.
Uncovering Volt Typhoon Volt Typhoon is an “advanced persistent threat group” that has been active since at least mid-2021. It’s believed to be sponsored by the Chinese government and is targeting critical infrastructure organisations in the US.
The group has focused much of its efforts on Guam. Located in the Western Pacific, this US island territory is home to a significant and growing US military presence, including the air force, a contingent of the marines, and the US navy’s nuclear-capable submarines.
It’s likely the Volt Typhoon attackers intended to gain access to networks connected to US critical infrastructure to disrupt communications, command and control systems, and maintain a persistent presence on the networks.
Volt Typhoon is the name Microsoft and the Five Eyes intelligence agencies have given a Chinese state sponsored hacking group, which they say installed a mysterious code in Guam’s telecommunications systems. https://t.co/xEwith7ZmM
The latter tactic would allow China to influence operations during a potential conflict in the South China Sea.
Australia wasn’t directly impacted by Volt Typhoon, according to official statements. Nevertheless, it would be a primary target for similar operations in the event of conflict.
As for how Volt Typhoon was caught, this hasn’t been disclosed. But Microsoft documents highlight previous observations of the threat actor attempting to dump credentials and stolen data from the victim organisation. It’s likely this led to the discovery of compromised networks and devices.
Living-off-the-land The hackers initially gained access to networks through internet-facing Fortinet FortiGuard devices, such as routers. Once inside, they employed a technique called “living-off-the-land”.
This is when attackers rely on using the resources already contained within the exploited system, rather than bringing in external tools. For example, they will typically use applications such as PowerShell (a Microsoft management programme) and Windows Management Instrumentation to access data and network functions.
By using internal resources, attackers can bypass safeguards that alert organisations to unauthorised access to their networks. Since no malicious software is used, they appear as a legitimate user.
As such, living-off-the-land allows for lateral movement within the network, and provides opportunity for a persistent, long-term attack.
The simultaneous announcements from the Five Eyes partners points to the seriousness of the Volt Typhoon compromise. It will likely serve as a warning to other nations in the Asia-Pacific region.
Who are the Five Eyes? Formed in 1955, the Five Eyes alliance is an intelligence-sharing partnership comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US.
The alliance was formed after World War II to counter the potential influence of the Soviet Union. It has a specific focus on signals intelligence. This involves intercepting and analysing signals such as radio, satellite and internet communications.
The members share information and access to their respective signals intelligence agencies, and collaborate to collect and analyse vast amounts of global communications data. A Five Eyes operation might also include intelligence provided by non-member nations and the private sector.
Recently, the member countries expressed concern about China’s de facto military control over the South China Sea, its suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, and threatening moves towards Taiwan.
The latest public announcement of China’s cyber operations no doubt serves as a warning that Western nations are paying strict attention to their critical infrastructure — and can respond to China’s digital aggression.
In 2019, Australia was targeted by Chinese state-backed threat actors gaining unauthorised access to Parliament House’s computer network. Indeed, there is evidence that China is engaged in a concerted effort to target Australia’s public and private networks.
The Five Eyes alliance may well be one of the only deterrents we have against long-term, persistent attacks against our critical infrastructure.
An Australian advocacy group has called for West Papua to be reinscribed on the United Nations list of “non self-governing territories”, citing the “sham” vote in 1969 and the worsening human rights violations in the Indonesian-ruled Melanesian region.
Tomorrow the annual International Week of Solidarity with the Peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories is due to begin tomorrow and will end on May 31.
“It’s 60 years since UNTEA transferred West Papua to Indonesian administration, which then unceremoniously removed it from the list.
“As for the so-called Act of Free Choice held in 1969, it was a sham and is referred to by West Papuans as the ‘act of no choice’.”
‘Seriously deteriorating’
Collins said in a statement today that the situation in West Papua was “seriously deteriorating” with ongoing human rights abuses in the territory.
“There are regular armed clashes between the Free Papua Movement [OPM] and the Indonesian security forces,” he said.
“West Papuans continue to be arrested at peaceful demonstrations and Papuans risk being charged with treason for taking part in the rallies.
“The military operations in the highlands have created up to 60,000 internally displaced people (IDPs), many facing starvation because they fear returning to their food gardens because of the Indonesian security forces.
“Recent armed clashes have also created new IDPs.
Collins cited New Zealand pilot Philip Mehrtens, who has been held hostage by the West Papuan National Liberation Army (TPNPB) for more than three months.
According to Mehrtens as quoted by ABC News on April 26, the Indonesian military had been “dropping bombs” in the area where he was being held, making it “dangerous for me and everybody here”.
‘French’ Polynesia an example
“We cannot expect the [UN Decolonisation Committee] to review the situation of West Papua at this stage as it would only bring to attention the complete failure by the UN to protect the people of West Papua.
However, territories had been reinscribed in the past as in the case of “French” Polynesia in 2013, Collins said.
But Collins said it was hoped that the UN committee could take some action.
“As they meet in Bali, it is hoped that the C24 members — who would be well aware of the ongoing human rights abuses in West Papua committed by the Indonesian security forces — will urge Jakarta to allow the High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit West Papua on a fact-finding mission to report on the deteriorating human rights situation in the territory.”
“It’s the least they could do.”
The work of the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation . . . Current Pacific members include Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste – and Indonesia is also a sitting member. Graphic: UN C24
Papua New Guinea yesterday intialled a defence cooperation agreement with the United States amid day-long protests against the signing by university students and opposition MPs.
The agreement was signed by PNG Defence Minister Win Daki and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
A statement by the US State Department said the signing, when it comes into force, “will serve as a foundational framework upon which our two countries can enhance security cooperation and further strengthen our bilateral relationship, improve the capacity of the PNG Defence Force and increase stability and security in the region”.
The US will publish the contents of the document when it enters into force as provided by US law, the statement declared.
Protests and demonstrations were held at four universities — the University of Papua New Guinea, University of Technology in Lae, Divine Word University in Madang and at the University of Goroka.
The UPNG protests spilled out on the streets last night stopping traffic.
Opposition Leader Joseph Lelang cautioned the government not to “sacrifice Papua New Guinea’s sovereignty” in the haste to sign international agreements with other nations, whatever the motivation.
In ‘crosshairs of China’
Former prime minister Peter O’Neill said the government was putting the country squarely in the “crosshairs of China and the United States” in their struggle for geopolitical supremacy in the region.
The US government will work with Congress to provide more than US$45 million (about K159 million, or NZ$72 million) in new programming as PNG and the US enter a new era as “partners for peace and prosperity in the region”.
Divine Word University students during their peaceful protest at the Madang campus yesterday. Image: The National
The US will provide an additional US$10 million (about K35.3 million) to implement the strategy to “prevent conflict and promote stability” in PNG, bringing total planned funding to US$30 million (about K106 million) over three years.
Blinken and PNG Prime Minister Marape also signed a comprehensive bilateral agreement to counter illicit transnational maritime activity through joint at-sea operations, the US statement revealed.
“This agreement will enable the US Coast Guard’s ship-rider programme to partner with and enhance PNG’s maritime governance capacity.
Marape said before the signing that the agreement would not encroach on the country’s sovereignty.
“The US and PNG have a long history, with shared experiences and this will be a continuation of that same path.
Generic SOFA in 1989
“PNG signed a generic SOFA [status of forces] agreement with other countries in 1989 and today with the signing of the defence cooperation and the maritime cooperation (ship-rider agreement) it will only elevate the SOFA.
“And this cooperation will help build the country’s defence capacity and capabilities and also address issues such as illegal fishing, logging and drug smuggling in PNG waters.”
Blinken said the agreement would help PNG mitigate the effects of climate change, tackle transnational crime and improve public health.
“We are proud to partner with PNG, driving economic opportunities and are committed to all aspects of the defence and maritime cooperation,” he said.
Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape says the increased United States security involvement in Papua New Guinea is driven primarily by the need to build up the Papua New Guinea Defence Force and not US-China geopolitics.
Last night, despite calls for more public consultation, the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Papua New Guinea’s Minister for Defence, Win Bakri Daki, penned the Bilateral Defence Cooperation and Shiprider agreements at APEC house in Port Moresby.
Prime Minister Marape said the milestone agreements were “important for the continued partnership of Papua New Guinea and the United States.”
“It’s mutually beneficial, it secures our national interests,” he said.
PNG Prime Minister James Marape . . . maintains that the controversial defence agreement is constitutional in spite of public criticism and a nationwide day of protests by university students. Image: Samuel Rillstone/RNZ Pacific
He said the penning of the new defence pact elevated prior security arrangements with the US under the 1989 Status of Forces Agreement.
Despite public criticism, Marape maintains the agreements are constitutional and will benefit PNG.
He said it had taken “many, many months and weeks” and passed through legal experts to reach this point.
The Shiprider agreement will act as a vital mechanism to tackle illegal fishing and drug trafficking alongside the US, which is a big issue that PNG faces in its waters, Marape said.
“I have a lot of illegal shipping engagements in the waters of Papua New Guinea, unregulated, unmonitored transactions take place, including drug trafficking,” he said
“This new Shiprider agreement now gives Papua New Guinea’s shipping authority, the Defence Force and Navy ‘full knowledge’ of what is happening in waters, something PNG has not had since 1975 [at independence],” Marape said.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken . . . “Papua New Guinea is playing a critical role in shaping our future.” Image: RNZ Pacific/Getty/AFP
Secretary of State Antony Blinken echoed those sentiments and stressed that the US was committing to the growing of all aspects of the relationship.
“Papua New Guinea is playing a critical role in shaping our future,” Blinken told the media.
He said the defence pact was drafted by both nations as “equal and sovereign partners”.
It was set to enhance PNG’s Defence Force capabilities, making it easy for both forces to train together.
He too stressed the US would be transparent.
For all their reassurances, both leaders steered clear of any mention of US troop deployments in PNG despite Marape having alluded to it in the lead up to the signing.
Reactions to the security pact Although celebrated by the governments of the US and PNG as milestone security agreements the lead up to the signings was marked by a day of university student protests across the country calling for greater transparency from the PNG government around the defence pact.
The students’ president at the University of Technology in Lae, Kenzie Walipi, had called for the government to explain exactly what was in the deal ahead of the signing.
“If such an agreement is going to affect us in any way, we have to be made aware,” Walipi said.
Just before the pen hit the paper last night, Marape again sought to reassure the public.
“This signing in no way, state or form terminates us from relating to other defence cooperations we have or other defence relationships or bilateral relationships that we have,” Marape said.
He added “this is a two-way highway”.
Students from the University of Goroka stage an early morning protest yesterday against the signing of the PNG-US Bilateral Defence Cooperation Agreement. Image: RNZ Pacific
Students at the University of Papua New Guinea ended a forum late last night and blocked off the main entrance to the campus as Prime Minister Marape and State Secretary Blinken signed the Defence Cooperation agreement.
They are maintaining a call for transparency and for a proper debate on the decision.
Hours before the signing, they presented a petition to the Planning Minister, Renbo Paita, who received their demands on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Students at the University of Technology in Lae met late into the night. Students posted live videos on Facebook of the forum as the signing happened in Port Moresby.
The potential impact of the agreements signed in Port Moresby overnight on Papua New Guinea and the Pacific will become more apparent once the full texts are made available online as promised by both the United States and Papua New Guinea.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Extending my heartfelt thanks to Prime Minister Marape and the people of Papua New Guinea for hosting me. I am grateful to have met with Pacific Islands leaders and to demonstrate our commitment to working together with our Pacific neighbors to address our shared challenges. pic.twitter.com/mpVCnIGDAT
— Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) May 22, 2023
When I was growing up in Kiribati, then known as the Gilbert Islands, New Zealand divers came to safely detonate unexploded munitions from World War II.
Decades on from when US Marines fought and won the Battle of Tarawa against Japan, war was still very much a part of everyday life.
Our school bell was a bombshell. We’d find bullet casings.
In fact, my grandmother’s leg was badly injured when she lit a fire on the beach, and an unexploded ordnance went off. There are Japanese bunkers and US machine gun mounts along the Betio shoreline, and bones are still being found — even today.
Stories are told . . . so many people died . . . these things are not forgotten.
That’s why the security and defence pacts being drawn up around the Pacific are worrying much of the region, as the US and Australia partner up to counter China’s growing influence.
You only have to read Australia’s Defence Strategic Review 2023 to see they are preparing for conflict.
The battle is climate change which is impacting their everyday life. The bigger powers will most certainly go through the motions of at least hearing their voices.
— Barbara Dreaver
Secret pact changed landscape
While in the last few years we have seen China put big money into the Pacific, it was primarily about diplomatic weight and ensuring Taiwan wasn’t recognised. But the secret security pact with the Solomon Islands changed the landscape dramatically.
There was a point where it stopped being about just aid and influence — and openly started to become much more serious.
Since then, the escalation has been rapid as the US and Australia have amped up their activities — and other state actors have as well.
In some cases, lobbying and negotiating have been covertly aggressive. Many Pacific countries are concerned about the militarisation of the region — and whether we like it or not, that’s where it’s headed.
Tuvalu’s Foreign Minister Simon Kofe said he understands why his country, which sits between Hawai’i and Australia, is of strategic interest to the superpowers.
Worried about militarisation, he admits they are coming under pressure from all sides — not just China but the West as well.
“In World War II, the war came to the Pacific even though we played no part at all in the conflict, and we became victims of a war that was not of our making,” he said.
Important Pacific doesn’t forget
“So it’s important for the Pacific not to forget that experience now we are seeing things that are happening in this part of the world, and it’s best we are prepared for that situation.”
Academic Dr Anna Powles, a long-time Pacific specialist, said she was very concerned at the situation, which was a “slippery slope” to militarisation.
She said Pacific capitals were being flooded with officials from around the region and from further afield who want to engage.
Pacific priorities are being undermined, and there is a growing disconnect in the region between national interest and the interest of the political elites.
Today in Papua New Guinea, we see first-hand how we are on the cusp of change.
They include big meetings spearheaded by the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, another one by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a defence deal that will allow US military access through ports and airports. In exchange, the US is providing an extra US$45 million (NZ$72 million) in funding a raft of initiatives, some of which include battling the effects of climate change.
Equipment boost
The PNG Defence Force is also getting an equipment boost, and there’s a focus on combatting law and order issues — which domestically is a big challenge — and protecting communities, particularly women, from violence.
There is much in these initiatives that the PNG government and the people here will find attractive. It may well be the balance between PNG’s national interest and US ambitions is met — it will be interesting to see if other Pacific leaders agree.
Because some Pacific leaders are happy to be courted and enjoy being at the centre of global attention (and we know who you are), others are determined to do the best for their people. The fight for them is not geopolitical, and it’s on the land they live on.
The battle is climate change which is impacting their everyday life. The bigger powers will most certainly go through the motions of at least hearing their voices.
What that will translate to remains to be seen.
Barbara Dreaver is TV1’s Pacific correspondent and is in Papua New Guinea with the New Zealand delegation. Republished with permission.
Thousands of students at the University of Papua New Guinea staged a protest at the Waigani campus Forum Square today against the US-PNG Defence Cooperation Agreement that is scheduled for signing this afternoon.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is already in the country to sign the defence pact and also the Ship Rider Agreement with PNG.
The students claimed that the agreements between PNG and the United States concerned national security and their content must be made known for public scrutiny and transparency before signing takes place.
However, Prime Minister James Marape had earlier insisted that the agreements to be signed were transparent.
Marape added that not all agreements signed should be presented to Parliament earlier.
He said the country’s State Solicitor, who represents PNG’s legal checks and balances, had been involved “every step of the way” and had given clearance over the laws of this country.
Marape said that as soon as it is stable for transparency the country would be privy to those agreements and they would be tabled in Parliament.
‘Almost there for signing’
“I just wish to assure everyone, that Parliament will be privy to what we are about to sign and at the moment our Foreign Affairs team has been leading the negotiations. We are at the stage where we are almost there for signing,” he said.
“I want to give assurance to our country, it is nothing to be sceptical about,” said Marape.
Marape further elaborated that similar agreements and cooperation had been reached with other countries and that PNG could reach out to other bilateral partners with similar agreements as stipulated in the Constitution.
Also, the country’s foreign policy was: “Friends to all and enemies to none”.
The US and PNG already had a Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA.
A SOFA is an agreement between a host country and a foreign nation stationing military forces in that country.
SOFAs are often included, along with other types of military agreements, as part of a comprehensive security arrangement.
Corporations allowed
Marape briefly stated that the SOFA agreement did allow US defence corporations and others to be involved in PNG.
PNG was just elevating this specific one with the USA.
Deputy Prime Minister John Rosso also clarified that once the agreement was agreed by the National Executive Council (NEC) and signed off by the Prime Minister and Defence Minister it would be brought before Parliament and debated before it became law.
On behalf of the government, Finance Minister Rainbo Paita adressed the protesting students at the UPNG Forum Square and received the petition presented by the Student Representative Council president Luther Kising.
Other tertiary institution’s student bodies, such as the University of Goroka and the University of Technology at Lae, have also protested against the defence cooperation agreement.
Meanwhile, there was a high presence of police reinforcements at the entrance to UPNG preventing the protest from escalating further.
Stella Martin and Rose Amosare NBC reporters. Republished with permission.
UPNG protesters at the Forum Square today. Image: NBC News
University students in Papua New Guinea are protesting against the signing of a defence cooperation agreement with the United States which is expected to take place today in Port Moresby.
Since 6am this morning, students from universities from around the country have been calling for more transparency from the government.
The student president at the University of Technology in Lae, Kenzie Walipi, said the government must explain exactly what was going to be in the deal ahead of the signing.
“If such an agreement is going to affect us in any way? We have to be made aware,” Walipi said.
“An agreement of this magnitude must go before Parliament. There must be clarity. The people must be made aware of the implications.”
Walipi said they were coordinating protests with student colleagues in other universities around the country.
Students at the University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) gathered at the Waigani campus.
Vice-Chancellor Professor Frank Griffin said the university administration would facilitate the presentation of a petition to government.
“Our job is not to say whether it [the petition] is in order or not in order. Our job is to actually help them with bringing it through the right processes to the attention of our Prime Minister,” Professor Griffin said.
Deal will ‘enhance security cooperation’ — US A fact sheet outlining US engagements with Papua New Guinea was released by the US Department of State yesterday. It said:
“On May 22, Secretary [Antony] Blinken will sign a Defense Cooperation Agreement, which, when it enters into force, will serve as a foundational framework upon which our two countries can enhance security cooperation and further strengthen our bilateral relationship, improve the capacity of the PNG Defence Force (PNGDF), and increase stability and security in the region.
“The United States expects to publish the text of the Defense Cooperation Agreement after entry into force, consistent with US law.”
The fact sheet noted the defence cooperation was just one of multiple new initiatives the US was entering into with Papua New Guinea.
“The United States will continue to partner with PNG on strengthening economic relations, security cooperation, and people-to-people ties, as well as promoting inclusive and sustainable development, including through plans to work with Congress to provide over $45 million in new programming,” it said.
Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken are expected to sign the agreement today prior to Blinken also meeting with leaders from the 14 other Pacific Islands countries who are in Port Moresby.
Pacific leaders will also be meeting with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who landed in the PNG capital overnight on his way back to India from the G7 summit in Japan.
Monday’s meeting will be the third in-person Pacific-India summit Modi has attended, the other two being in Jaipur, India in 2015 and Suva, Fiji in 2014.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi being welcomed to Port Moresby by his PNG counterpart James Marape (left) last night for talks with Pacific Island leaders. Image: RNZ Pacific/AFP
Papua New Guinea expects to see a steady increase in United States military presence following the signing of the US-PNG Defense Cooperation Agreement today.
But there is uncertainty over the future implications for the country and its people with the agreement giving the US access to strategic military and civilian locations within Papua New Guinea.
“You need not fear [it], this is not a new thing,” Prime Minister James Marape said.
While the details of the agreement are yet to be made clear, there will be a steady increase in US military presence over the next decade — the biggest since World War II.
“How many soldiers we are looking at, how many contractors we are looking at, I do not have that scope today but there will certainly be an increased presence and a more direct presence of US in our country,” Marape said.
He has had other proposals from nations wanting an agreement of sorts but they were turned away because they stipulated PNG must not engage with other nations.
The Prime Minister said the agreement with Washington was the only proposed agreement which allowed PNG to engage with who they want.
US soldiers, contractors
“Certainly, as we go forward over the next 15 years, we will see US soldiers in our country. We will see US contractors in our country,” Marape said.
Papua New Guinea is a strategic military location for western powers. In the north of the country, Lombrum in Manus Province, was once a combined US naval and airbase with more than 30,000 personnel.
PACIFIC Islands Forum Sectratery Henry Puna was welcomed with a Cook Island welcome song “Trete”sung by Vabukori singing group at Jackson’s International Airport. pic.twitter.com/dAfjUzQwMZ
Outside of political circles, various groups have come together to voice strong concerns about the agreement.
The president of the Catholic Professionals Society, Paul Harricknen, fears the agreement may be unconstitutional.
“America needs to understand that we are a constitutional democracy. If there is to be geopolitical rivalry, they cannot use PNG for their disagreements,” Harricknen said.
But Marape insists it is a constitutional agreement.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Pacific leaders are in Papua New Guinea to attend two separate but significant meetings with India’s Prime Minister and a high level US delegation. Image: Lydia Lewis/RNZ Pacific
The CIA has launched a new podcast to help spread propaganda about the agency. And, Bayer was recently hit with a massive jury verdict after they were found liable for poisoning an educational center. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos. Mike Papantonio: The […]
On the eve of Papua New Guinea’s hosted Pacific meetings, Free Papua Organisation-OPM leader Jeffrey Bomanak has called for an international embargo on Indonesian goods and services in protest over what he calls Jakarta’s “unlawful military occupation” of West Papua.
Bomanak has also challenged US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to meet with him while visiting Port Moresby today to review “six decades of prima facie photographic evidence of Indonesia’s crimes against humanity”.
“My people have been in a war of liberation from Indonesia’s illegal invasion and annexation for six decades,” he said in a statement.
“Six decades of barbarity and callous international abandonment.”
He said the “theft” of West Papua and its natural resources with the alleged complicity of the US and Australian governments had been “well documented in countless books and journals”.
He described the ongoing human rights violations in West Papua as a “travesty of justice”.
“Indonesia will never leave West Papua without being pushed. We are waiting for an act of deliverance,” Bomanak said.
“To all unions and every unionist — help us reach our day of liberation.”
Both agreements for signing Meanwhile, the PNG Post-Courier reports that Prime Minister James Marape confirmed last night that the Ship Rider Agreement and the Defence Cooperation Agreement would both be signed with the United States this afternoon.
PNG’S Prime Minister James Marape . . . plans to sign both agreements with the US today. Image: PNG Post-Courier
US State Secretary Blinken would sign the agreements during his visit to PNG.
Marape said he did not see geopolitics being involved in the defence agreement. He was signing this agreement to protect the territorial borders from “all kinds of emerging threats”.
He said the agreement was only a defence force cooperation pact like it had with Australia and Indonesia.
Marape hosted dinner last night for all the leaders of the Pacific who had arrived earlier yesterday and on Saturday.
He said Pacific leaders would present their challenges to the world leaders — Blinken and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi — who would be coming for separate meetings.
Pacific leaders are starting to trickle into Papua New Guinea for two high level meetings and a number of side talks.
The leaders are set to meet with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a high-level US delegation in Port Moresby tomorrow.
PNG Prime Minister James Marape told local media on Thursday that President Joe Biden had called to apologise for his absence due to the need to return to Washington for meetings with Congressional leaders to raise its debt ceiling issue and avoid a default.
“He conveyed his sincerest apologies that he cannot make it into our country,” Marape said.
“I did place the invitation to him [that] at the next earliest available time, please come and visit us here.”
Biden has confirmed that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken will arrive on Monday to meet with PNG for a bilateral meeting and engage in a separate meeting with the Pacific Islands Forum leaders.
Biden also invited Marape and other Pacific leaders to Washington later this year for the second US summit with the Pacific Islands Forum.
“He did invite again the Pacific Island leaders to go back for a progressive continuation of the meeting that we have initially held last September in Washington,” Marape said.
Fiji’s Rabuka already in PNG
Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has already arrived in Papua New Guinea.
He was greeted by acting Deputy Prime Minister John Rosso.
“After being welcomed by young traditional Motu Koitabu dancers, PM Rabuka made a courtesy visit to Government House and met with Governor-General Grand Chief Sir Bob Dadae,” Rosso said in a statement.
He has since been hosted by Marape for dinner at the State Function Room at Parliament House.
“PM Rabuka will be joined by other Pacific Island leaders, including New Zealand PM Chris Hipkins, who will travel into PNG this weekend,” Rosso said.
The traditional presentation of kamunaga or whale’s tooth was accorded to Governor-General Dadae to convey Fiji’s respect and appreciation for the historical and traditional ties shared between our two countries and moreso to further advance regional cooperation. pic.twitter.com/vbFOCrmTLk
The leaders will be in Port Moresby for the third Forum for India-Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC).
According to Marape, 14 of the 18 Pacific Islands Forum member leaders, including New Zealand’s Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, are expected to be in attendance.
Marape calls for calm Marape said a Defence Cooperation Agreement that is being mulled over in anticipation of an upcoming bilateral meeting with the US was consistent with the country’s “constitutional provisions”.
The cabinet is aware of the agreement, “cabinet has not concluded on this. It is awaiting cabinet conclusion,” he said.
He has called for people to trust in the process as he believes it would have a positive impact on the country.
“Another agreement called a 505 agreement, separate agreement, allows for us to have a working partnership with the US, US Navy and the US Coast Guard.
“With the US Coast Guard, it now gives us an opportune time to access not just on maritime access, but satellite access to illegal fishing, drug traffickers, illegal loggers, all those illegal transportations and activities that happens on high sea,” Marape added.
Meanwhile, PNG’s National Executive Council has confirmed that the public holiday announced for Monday for the National Capital District still stands despite Biden cancelling his attendance.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Fiji PM Sitiveni Rabuka arrives in PNG and is greeted by a guard of honour. Image: PNG govt/RNZ Pacific
The US military recently purchased a massive new surveillance program that could give them access to EVERYTHING that’s done online. And, the city of Oakland, California is hoping to use armed robots to kill suspects in the near future. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please […]
Former military officials are cashing in by taking jobs with foreign governments that are hostile to the United States. Plus, progressives are on the hunt for new candidates to replace the very few, but very old, real progressive leaders in Washington. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, […]
Documents obtained by The Intercept prove that the Department of Homeland Security has been censoring stories with the help of social media outlets. Then, a Starbucks manager says that he was told to punish pro-union employees at his store. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please […]
Veterans’ groups are suing the Department of Defense for covering up the chemical exposure that our troops are subjected to at an overseas military base. Thousands of soldiers have reported illnesses and cancers, but the military refuses to tell our troops what they’ve been exposed to. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by […]
America’s Lawyer E50: The indictments against Donald Trump have left the political world wondering if this is putting us on a slippery slope that could lead to prosecutions of other elected officials – but that might not be a bad thing at all. The teacher that was shot by her 6-year old student has filed a […]
The last fortnight has seen a series of brutal, deliberately provocative Israeli attacks on Palestinian worshippers at Al Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
Needless to say, Israel had no business interfering in Muslim worship at Al Aqsa, the third holiest shrine for Muslims after Mecca and Medina, and an area which is not under their authority or control.
Despite this, Israeli attacks on Al Aqsa have intensified in recent years as the apartheid state strives to undermine all aspects of Palestinian life in Jerusalem. It is applying ethnic cleansing in slow motion.
Inevitably missile attacks on Israel from Gaza and Southern Lebanon followed and Israel has reveled in once again trying to portray itself to the world as the victim.
There is an excellent 10-minute video in which former Palestinian spokesperson Hanan Ashrawi more than held her own against a hostile BBC interviewer here.
WATCH | A masterclass by @DrHananAshrawi illuminating the everyday violence & aggression Palestinians endure at the hands of Israel’s occupation, the inevitable local resistance to it & Israel’s ongoing impunity while also fending off @BBCWorld‘s spurious line of questioning. pic.twitter.com/eTpvXV7QbI
There is also an excellent podcast produced by Al Jazeera which backgrounds the increase in violence in the Middle East.
Inside Story: What triggered the spike in violence? Video: Al Jazeera
Nour Odeh – Political analyst and former spokeswoman for the Palestinian National Authority.
Uri Dromi – Founder and president of the Jerusalem Press Club and a former spokesman for the Israel government.
Francesca Albanese – United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Further background on the politics around Al Aqsa is covered in this Al Jazeera podcast.
I strongly condemn Israel’s excessive use of force against Palestinian Muslims praying at #AlAqsaMosque during Ramadan, & its breaches of the #StatusQuo. This recklessness risks bringing further devastation to both sides of the Green Line.
Full statement: https://t.co/ys58j0bIzthttps://t.co/mWfJiHSVaT
— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) April 6, 2023
Initially reporting here in New Zealand was reasonable and clearly identified Israel as the brutal racist aggressors attacking Palestinian civilians at worship. However, within a couple of days media reporting deteriorated dramatically with the “normal” appalling reporting taking over — painting Palestinians as terrorists and Israel as simply enforcing “law and order”.
At the heart of appalling reporting for a long time has been the BBC which slavishly and consistently screws the scrum in Israel’s favour. The BBC does not report on the Middle East – it propagandises for Israel.
Journalist Jonathan Cook describes how the BBC coverage is enabling Israeli violence and UN Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, called out the BBC’s awful reporting in a tweet.
Renewed violence against Palestinian worshippers at #AlAqsaMosque on yet another Ramadan turned into suffering,must be condemned,investigated & accounted for.
Misleading media coverage contributes to enabling Israel’s unchecked occupation & must also be condemned/accounted for https://t.co/JI6YzNgCju
— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) April 5, 2023
It’s not just the BBC of course. For example The New York Times has been called out for deliberately distorting the news to blame Palestinians for Al Aqsa mosque crisis.
It’s not reporting — it’s propaganda!
Why is BBC important for Aotearoa New Zealand? Unfortunately, here in Aotearoa New Zealand our media frequently and uncritically uses BBC reports to inform New Zealanders on the Middle East.
Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand, our state broadcasters, are the worst offenders.
For example here are two BBC stories carried by RNZ this past week here and here. They cover the deaths of three Jewish women in a terrorist attack in the occupied West Bank.
The media should report such killings but there is no context given for the illegal Jewish-only settlements at the heart in the occupied West Bank, Israel’s military occupation across all Palestine, the daily ritual humiliation and debasement of Palestinians or its racist apartheid policies towards Palestinians — or as Israeli human rights groups B’Tselem describes it “A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid”.
Neither are there Palestinian voices in the above reports — they are typically absent from most Middle East reporting, or at best muted, compared to extensive quoting from racist Israeli leaders.
The BBC is happy to report the “what?” but not the “why?”
Needless to say neither Radio New Zealand, nor TVNZ, has provided any such sympathetic coverage for the many dozens of Palestinians killed by Israel this year — including at least 16 Palestinian children. To the BBC, RNZ and TVNZ, murdered Palestinian children are simply statistics.
RNZ and TVNZ say they cannot ensure to cover all the complexities of the Middle East in every story and that people get a balanced view over time from their regular reporting.
This is not true. Their reliance on so much systematically-biased BBC reporting, and other sources which are often not much better, tells a different story.
For example, references to Israel as an apartheid state — something attested to by every credible human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch — are always absent from any RNZ or TVNZ reporting and yet this is critical to help people understand what is going on in Palestine.
Neither are there significant references to international law or United Nations resolutions — the tools which provide for a Middle East peace based on justice — the only peace possible.
Unlike their reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, RNZ and TVNZ reporting on the Middle East leaves people confused and ready to blame both sides equally for the murder and mayhem unleashed by Israel on Palestinians and Palestinian resistance to the Israeli military occupation and all that entails.
John Minto is a political activist and commentator, and spokesperson for Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa. This article is republished from the PSNA newsletter with the author’s permission.
“Divide and Dominate” . . . how Israel’s apartheid policies and repression impact on Palestinians. Image: Visualising Palestine
The Pacific Islands Forum chairman has been assured by the United States that the AUKUS agreement will honour the Treaty of Rarotonga after initially saying he felt it would go against it.
The Treaty of Rarotonga formalises a nuclear-weapon-free-zone in the South Pacific. It was signed by several Pacific nations, including Australia and New Zealand in 1985.
In a media statement, forum chairman and Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown said he was “reassured to receive from US counterparts last week assurances that AUKUS would uphold the Rarotonga Treaty”.
“The whole intention of the Treaty of Rarotonga was to try to de-escalate what were at the time Cold War tensions between the major superpowers. This AUKUS arrangement seems to be going against it,” Brown told the newspaper in March.
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown . . . previously not happy about how the AUKUS arrangement had already lead to an escalation in tension within the region. Image: RNZ Pacific/Sprep/Cook Islands Govt
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown. Photo: Sprep/Cook Islands Government
Brown told Cook Islands News at the time the situation “is what it is” but was not happy about how the arrangement had already lead to an escalation in tension within the region.
Last month, the leaders of the United States, the UK and Australia — Joe Biden, Rishi Sunak and Anthony Albanese respectively — formally announced the deal in San Diego.
It will see the Australian government spending nearly US$250 billion over the next three decades to acquire a fleet of US nuclear submarines with UK tech components — the majority of which will be built in Adelaide — as part of the defence and security pact.
Its implementation will make Australia one of only seven countries in the world to have nuclear-powered submarines alongside China, India, Russia, the UK, the US and France.
‘Assurance’ by Australia
New Zealand Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta told RNZ Pacific she had been given “assurance” by Australia that the treaty would be upheld.
Mahuta said as members of the Pacific, there was an expectation that nations were briefed on bilateral decisions that impact the stability of the region.
“What I can say from a New Zealand perspective, is that we need to work hard together as a Pacific family to ensure greater stability and there is no militarisation of our region,” she said.
“We want to maintain a nuclear-free Pacific, we want to work with Pacific neighbours around any security related issues.”
Mahuta visited China last month and said the non-militarisation of the Pacific was discussed in her meetings along with other issues, like climate change.
Geopolitical analyst Geoffrey Miller said the AUKUS deal was probably “complaint by the letter of the law” but not “by the spirit”.
“It does set a bad precedent … if you want to get hold of nuclear technology in the future just get it in a submarine because that seems to be acceptable,” Miller said.
‘Submarine loophole’
“It has been called a submarine loophole.”
He said concerns have been expressed by outside experts, including China, but they should be taken seriously.
Meanwhile, Vanuatu Minister, Ralph Regenvanu has called for Australia to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Regenvanu said in a tweet it was the “only way to assure us that the subs WON’T carry nuclear weapons” and it was a request from Vanuatu to sign.
The Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is a legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapon. The treaty entered into force in 2021.
However, when approached by RNZ Pacific, Regenvanu said he did not want to comment on his tweet and Australia’s Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy was visiting the Pacific nation later this week.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The only way to assure us that the subs WON’T carry nuclear weapons, and that AUKUS will therefore NOT breach the Rarotonga Treaty, is for Australia to become a party to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Vanuatu is requesting that. https://t.co/eFSdRwTzTV
The authorities in Indonesia’s Papua region say the search for a New Zealand pilot taken hostage by West Papua Liberation Movement freedom fighters more than two months ago has been extended.
Commissioner Rahmadani said several efforts have been carried out to rescue the pilot, including involving a negotiating team comprising community leaders, the publication reported.
However, the negotiation has not yielded any results.
The search now covers about 36,000 sq km.
Commissioner Rahmadani said the safety of Captain Merthens was the priority for his team.
In the video, which was sent to RNZ Pacific, Mehrtens was instructed to read a statement saying “no foreign pilots are to work and fly” into Highlands Papua until Papua was independent.
He made another demand for West Papua independence from Indonesia later in the statement.
Mehrtens was surrounded by more than a dozen people, some of them armed with weapons.
Previously, a TPNPB spokesperson said they were waiting for a response from the New Zealand government to negotiate the release of Mehrtens.
In February, United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) leader Benny Wenda called for the rebels to release Mehrtens.
He said he sympathised with the New Zealand people and Merhtens’ family but insisted the situation was a result of Indonesia’s refusal to allow the UN Human Rights Commissioner to visit Papua.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The West Papua Liberation Army says they would drop the key demand that Jakarta recognise the independence of the Papua region #WestPapua#nzpolhttps://t.co/I2Vd13w66G
The late Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel laureate and tireless campaigner against South African apartheid, once observed: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
For decades, the BBC’s editorial policy in reporting on Israel and Palestine has consistently chosen the side of the oppressor — and all too often, not even by adopting the impartiality the corporation claims as the bedrock of its journalism.
Instead, the British state broadcaster regularly chooses language and terminology whose effect is to deceive its audience. And it compounds such journalistic malpractice by omitting vital pieces of context when that extra information would present Israel in a bad light.
BBC bias — which entails knee-jerk echoing of the British establishment’s support for Israel as a highly militarised ally projecting Western interests into the oil-rich Middle East – was starkly on show once again this week as the broadcaster reported on the violence at Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Social media was full of videos showing heavily armed Israeli police storming the mosque complex during the holy Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.
Police could be seen pushing peaceful Muslim worshippers, including elderly men, off their prayer mats and forcing them to leave the site. In other scenes, police were filmed beating worshippers inside a darkened Al-Aqsa, while women could be heard screaming in protest.
What is wrong with the British state broadcaster’s approach — and much of the rest of the Western media’s — is distilled in one short BBC headline: “Clashes erupt at contested holy site.”
Into a sentence of just six words, the BBC manages to cram three bogusly “neutral” words, whose function is not to illuminate or even to report, but to trick the audience, as Tutu warned, into siding with the oppressor.
Furious backlash Though video of the beatings was later included on the BBC’s website and the headline changed after a furious online backlash, none of the sense of unprovoked, brutal Israeli state violence, or its malevolent rationale, was captured by the BBC’s reporting.
To call al-Aqsa a ‘contested holy site’, as the BBC does, is simply to repeat a propaganda talking point from Israel, the oppressor state, and dress it up as neutral reporting
The “clashes” at al-Aqsa, in the BBC’s telling, presume a violent encounter between two groups: Palestinians, described by Israel and echoed by the BBC as “agitators”, on one side; and Israeli forces of law and order on the other.
That is the context, according to the BBC, for why unarmed Palestinians at worship need to be beaten. And that message is reinforced by the broadcaster’s description of the seizure of hundreds of Palestinians at worship as “arrests” — as though an unwelcome, occupying, belligerent security force present on another people’s land is neutrally and equitably upholding the law.
“Erupt” continues the theme. It suggests the “clashes” are a natural force, like an earthquake or volcano, over which Israeli police presumably have little, if any, control. They must simply deal with the eruption to bring it to an end.
And the reference to the “contested” holy site of Al-Aqsa provides a spurious context legitimising Israeli state violence: police need to be at Al-Aqsa because their job is to restore calm by keeping the two sides “contesting” the site from harming each other or damaging the holy site itself.
The BBC buttresses this idea by uncritically citing an Israeli police statement accusing Palestinians of being at Al-Aqsa to “disrupt public order and desecrate the mosque”.
Palestinians are thus accused of desecrating their own holy site simply by worshipping there — rather than the desecration committed by Israeli police in storming al-Aqsa and violently disrupting worship.
The History of Al-Aqsa Mosque. Video: Middle East Eye
Israeli provocateurs The BBC’s framing should be obviously preposterous to any rookie journalist in Jerusalem. It assumes that Israeli police are arbiters or mediators at Al-Aqsa, dispassionately enforcing law and order at a Muslim place of worship, rather than the truth: that for decades, the job of Israeli police has been to act as provocateurs, dispatched by a self-declared Jewish state, to undermine the long-established status quo of Muslim control over Al-Aqsa.
Events were repeated for a second night this week when police again raided Al-Aqsa, firing rubber bullets and tear gas as thousands of Palestinians were at prayer. US statements calling for “calm” and “de-escalation” adopted the same bogus evenhandedness as the BBC.
The mosque site is not “contested”, except in the imagination of Jewish religious extremists, some of them in the Israeli government, and the most craven kind of journalists.
True, there are believed to be the remains of two long-destroyed Jewish temples somewhere underneath the raised mount where al-Aqsa is built. According to Jewish religious tradition, the Western Wall — credited with being a retaining wall for one of the disappeared temples – is a place of worship for Jews.
But under that same Jewish rabbinical tradition, the plaza where Al-Aqsa is sited is strictly off-limits to Jews. The idea of Al-Aqsa complex as being “contested” is purely an invention of the Israeli state — now backed by a few extremist settler rabbis — that exploits this supposed “dispute” as the pretext to assert Jewish sovereignty over a critically important piece of occupied Palestinian territory.
Israel’s goal — not Judaism’s — is to strip Palestinians of their most cherished national symbol, the foundation of their religious and emotional attachment to the land of their ancestors, and transfer that symbol to a state claiming to exclusively represent the Jewish people.
To call Al-Aqsa a “contested holy site”, as the BBC does, is simply to repeat a propaganda talking point from Israel, the oppressor state, and dress it up as neutral reporting.
‘Equal rights’ at Al-Aqsa The reality is that there would have been no “clashes”, no “eruption” and no “contest” had Israeli police not chosen to storm Al-Aqsa while Palestinians were worshipping there during the holiest time of the year.
This is not a ‘clash’. It is not a ‘conflict’. Those supposedly ‘neutral’ terms conceal what is really happening: apartheid and ethnic cleansing
There would have been no “clashes” were Israeli police not aggressively enforcing a permanent occupation of Palestinian land in Jerusalem, which has encroached ever more firmly on Muslim access to, and control over, the mosque complex.
There would have been no “clashes” were Israeli police not taking orders from the latest – and most extreme – of a series of police ministers, Itamar Ben Gvir, who does not even bother to hide his view that Al-Aqsa must be under absolute Jewish sovereignty.
There would have been no “clashes” had Israeli police not been actively assisting Jewish religious settlers and bigots to create facts on the ground over many years — facts to bolster an evolving Israeli political agenda that seeks “equal rights” at Al-Aqsa for Jewish extremists, modelled on a similar takeover by settlers of the historic Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron.
And there would have been no “clashes” if Palestinians were not fully aware that, over many years, a tiny, fringe Jewish settler movement plotting to blow up Al-Aqsa Mosque to build a Third Temple in its place has steadily grown, flourishing under the sponsorship of Israeli politicians and ever more sympathetic Israeli media coverage.
Cover story for violence Along with the Israeli army, the paramilitary Israeli police are the main vehicle for the violent subjugation of Palestinians, as the Israeli state and its settler emissaries dispossess Palestinians, driving them into ever smaller enclaves.
This is not a “clash”. It is not a “conflict”. Those supposedly “neutral” terms conceal what is really happening: apartheid andethnic cleansing.
Just as there is a consistent, discernible pattern to Israel’s crimes against Palestinians, there is a parallel, discernible pattern in the Western media’s misleading reporting on Israel and Palestine.
Palestinians in the occupied West Bank are being systematically dispossessed by Israel of their homes and farmlands so they can be herded into overcrowded, resource-starved cities.
Palestinians in Gaza have been dispossessed of their access to the outside world, and even to other Palestinians, by an Israeli siege that encages them in an overcrowded, resourced-starved coastal enclave.
And in the Old City of Jerusalem, Palestinians are being progressively dispossessed by Israel of access to, and control over, their central religious resource: Al-Aqsa Mosque. Their strongest source of religious and emotional attachment to Jerusalem is being actively stolen from them.
To describe as “clashes” any of these violent state processes — carefully calibrated by Israel so they can be rationalised to outsiders as a “security response” — is to commit the very journalistic sin Tutu warned of. In fact, it is not just to side with the oppressor, but to intensify the oppression; to help provide the cover story for it.
That point was made this week by Francesca Albanese, the UN expert on Israel’s occupation. She noted in a tweet about the BBC’s reporting of the Al-Aqsa violence: “Misleading media coverage contributes to enabling Israel’s unchecked occupation & must also be condemned/accounted for.”
Bad journalism There can be reasons for bad journalism. Reporters are human and make mistakes, and they can use language unthinkingly, especially when they are under pressure or events are unexpected.
It is an editorial choice that keeps the BBC skewing its reporting in the same direction: making Israel look like a judicious actor pursuing lawful, rational goals
But that is not the problem faced by those covering Israel and Palestine. Events can be fast-moving, but they are rarely new or unpredictable. The reporter’s task should be to explain and clarify the changing forms of the same, endlessly repeating central story: of Israel’s ongoing dispossession and oppression of Palestinians, and of Palestinian resistance.
The challenge is to make sense of Israel’s variations on a theme, whether it is dispossessing Palestinians through illegal settlement-building and expansion; army-backed settler attacks; building walls and cages for Palestinians; arbitrary arrests and night raids; the murder of Palestinians, including children and prominent figures; house demolitions; resource theft; humiliation; fostering a sense of hopelessness; or desecrating holy sites.
No one, least of all BBC reporters, should have been taken by surprise by this week’s events at Al-Aqsa.
The Muslim holy fasting month of Ramadan, when Al-Aqsa is at the heart of Islamic observance for Palestinians, coincided this year with the Jewish Passover holiday, as it did last year.
Passover is when Jewish religious extremists hope to storm Al-Aqsa Mosque complex to make animal sacrifices, recreating some imagined golden age in Judaism. Those extremists tried again this year, as they do every year — except this year, they had a police minister in Ben Gvir, leader of the fascist Jewish Power party, who is privately sympathetic to their cause.
Violent settler and army attacks on Palestinian farmers in the occupied West Bank, especially during the autumn olive harvest, are a staple of news reporting from the region, as is the intermittent bombing of Gaza or snipers shooting Palestinians protesting their mass incarceration by Israel.
It is an endless series of repetitions that the BBC has had decades to make sense of and find better ways to report.
It is not journalistic error or failure that is the problem. It is an editorial choice that keeps the British state broadcaster skewing its reporting in the same direction: making Israel look like a judicious actor pursuing lawful, rational goals, while Palestinian resistance is presented as tantrum-like behaviour, driven by uncontrollable, unintelligible urges that reflect hostility towards Jews rather than towards an oppressor Israeli state.
Tail of a mouse Archbishop Tutu expanded on his point about siding with the oppressor. He added: “If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
This week, a conversation between Ben Gvir, the far-right, virulently anti-Arab police minister, and his police chief, Kobi Shabtai, was leaked to Israel’s Channel 12 News. Shabtai reportedly told Ben Gvir about his theory of the “Arab mind”, noting: “They murder each other. It’s in their nature. That’s the mentality of the Arabs.”
This conclusion — convenient for a police force that has abjectly failed to solve crimes within Palestinian communities — implies that the Arab mind is so deranged, so bloodthirsty, that brutal repression of the kind seen at Al-Aqsa is all police can do to keep a bare minimum of control.
Ben Gvir, meanwhile, believes a new “national guard” — a private militia he was recently promised by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — can help him to crush Palestinian resistance. Settler street thugs, his political allies, will finally be able to put on uniforms and have official licence for their anti-Arab violence.
This is the real context — the one that cannot be acknowledged by the BBC or other Western outlets — for the police storming of Al-Aqsa complex this week. It is the same context underpinning settlement expansion, night raids, checkpoints, the siege of Gaza, the murder of Palestinian journalists, and much, much more.
Jewish supremacism undergirds every Israeli state action towards Palestinians, tacitly approved by Western states and their media in the service of advancing Western colonialism in the oil-rich Middle East.
The BBC’s coverage this week, as in previous months and years, was not neutral, or even accurate. It was, as Tutu warned, a confidence trick — one meant to lull audiences into accepting Israeli violence as always justified, and Palestinian resistance as always abhorrent.
Jonathan Cook is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at www.jonathan-cook.net. This article was first published at Middle East Eye and is republished with the permission of the author.
“China is preparing to kill Americans and we’ve got to prepare to defend ourselves,” empire propagandist Gordon Chang told Fox Business during an interview on Monday.
Chang, who has famously spent more than two decades incorrectly predicting the imminent collapse of China, bizarrely made these comments while discussing a future attack on Taiwan. Taiwan is of course not the United States and any potential war between Taiwan and the mainland would be an inter-Chinese conflict that needn’t involve a single American, and Chang is most assuredly not part of any “we” who will ever be engaged in combat with the Chinese military under any circumstances.
Chang frames his narrative as though China is menacing Americans in their homes, when in reality only the exact opposite is true: the US has been militarily encircling China for many years, and is rapidly accelerating its efforts to do so.
Just the other day the Philippines announced the locations of four military bases the US will now have access to in its ongoing encirclement operation, most of them in the northern provinces closest to China.
Three of the Philippine bases will be located in northern Philippine provinces, a move that angers China since they can be used as staging grounds for a fight over Taiwan. The US will be granted access to the Lal-lo Airport and the Naval Base Camilo Osias, which are both located in the northern Cagayan province. In the neighboring Isabela province, the US will gain access to Camp Melchor Dela Cruz.
The US military will also be able to expand to Palawan, an island province in the South China Sea, disputed waters that are a major source of tensions between the US and China. The US will be granted access to Balabac Island, the southernmost island of Palawan.
The new locations are on top of five bases the US currently has access to, bringing the total number of bases the US can rotate forces through in the Philippines to nine. The expansion in the Philippines is a significant step in the US effort to build up its military assets in the region to prepare for a future war with China.
So it’s very clear who the aggressor is here and who is preparing to attack whom. Imperial spinmeisters like Gordon Chang are just lying when they frame China’s militarizing to defend itself against undisguised US encirclement as China militarizing to attack Americans.
In March 1966, Secretary of State Dean Rusk spoke before a congressional committee about American policy toward China. Mr. Rusk, it seems, was perplexed that “At times the Communist Chinese leaders seem to be obsessed with the notion that they are being threatened and encircled.” He spoke of China’s “imaginary, almost pathological, notion that the United States and other countries around its borders are seeking an opportunity to invade mainland China and destroy the Peiping [Peking] regime”. The Secretary then added:
“How much Peiping’s ‘fear’ of the United States is genuine and how much it is artificially induced for domestic political purposes only the Chinese Communist leaders themselves know. I am convinced, however, that their desire to expel our influence and activity from the western Pacific and Southeast Asia is not motivated by fears that we are threatening them.”
Another fun fact: thanks to a 2021 revelation by Daniel Ellsberg, we now know that the secretary of state’s comments about how crazy and paranoid China was for thinking the US wanted to attack it came just eight years after the US had seriously considered acting on plans it had drawn up to launch a nuclear strike on the Chinese mainland.
Daniel Ellsberg is challenging the constitutionality of the Espionage Act—openly breaking the law to expose an insane Pentagon plan to use pre-emptive nuclear strikes on mainland China in a Taiwan conflict, despite US officials considering nuclear retaliation "very likely." https://t.co/7tCTRIr3tt
Mainstream western imperialists of all stripes have long recognized that a hard conflict with China will be necessary at some point in the future if they’re to continue their domination of the world. In his 2005 book “Superpatriot”, Michael Parenti wrote that the unipolarist neoconservative “PNAC” (Project for the New American Century) ideology that had by that point taken over US foreign policy was ultimately geared toward a future conflict with China:
“The PNAC plan envisions a strategic confrontation with China, and a still greater permanent military presence in every corner of the world. The objective is not just power for its own sake but power to control the world’s natural resources and markets, power to privatize and deregulate the economies of every nation in the world, and power to hoist upon the backs of peoples everywhere — including North America — the blessings of an untrammeled global ‘free market.’ The end goal is to ensure not merely the supremacy of global capitalism as such, but the supremacy of American global capitalism by preventing the emergence of any other potentially competing superpower.”
But you can see the twinkle of this looming conflict in the eyes of western imperialists long before any of this. In a 1902 interview (which was not published until 1966 — a year after Churchill’s death), Churchill candidly voiced his support for partitioning China at some point in the future in order to preserve the dominance of the “Aryan stock” over “barbaric nations”:
The East is interesting, and to no one can it be more valuable and interesting than to anyone who comes from the West.
I think we shall have to take the Chinese in hand and regulate them. I believe that as civilized nations become more powerful they will get more ruthless, and the time will come when the world will impatiently bear the existence of great barbaric nations who may at any time arm themselves and menace civilized nations. I believe in the ultimate partition of China—I mean ultimate. I hope we shall not have to do it in our day. The Aryan stock is bound to triumph.
The word “partition” here means breaking a nation up into smaller nations, i.e. balkanization. To this day we see western imperialists pushing for the partitioning of disobedient nations like Russia and Syria, and we still see this with China in the push to permanently amputate regions like Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan from Beijing.
China’s sheer size, social cohesion and geostrategic location have long been recognized as a potential problem in the future for western imperialists who wish to ensure their ability to dominate and control, and now we’re seeing that all come to a head. Churchill said of a future confrontation with China “I hope we shall not have to do it in our day” because that confrontation has always been certain to be horrific, and today in the Atomic Age this is far more true than it was in 1902.
And in fact we do not have to do it in our day, either. We don’t have to do it in any day. The only reason we’re being pushed toward a profoundly dangerous conflict with China is because it’s the only way for western imperialists to maintain their hegemonic control of this planet, but their hegemonic control of this planet has brought us to a point of endlessly escalating nuclear brinkmanship and looming ecosystemic collapse. It hasn’t exactly been working out great, is what I am saying.
There’s no reason the west can’t simply accept the existence of other powers and stop trying to dominate everyone on earth. We have long been ruled by tyrants who continually push our world toward suffering and death in the name of securing more power and control, but we don’t need to accept their rule. They do not have a healthy vision for our species, and there are a whole lot more of us than there are of them. Their rule is done as soon as enough of us decide it is.
__________________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon, Paypal, or Substack, buying an issue of my monthly zine, and following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.
The Biden administration opened its second Summit for Democracy this week with a panel featuring India’s Narendra Modi and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. As the leaders of their countries, both have pursued similar forms of exclusionary nationalism.
Indeed, both Modi and Netanyahu were—as they spoke—facing political crises at home in response to their attempts to permanently sideline democratic opposition.
This was a seemingly discordant note with which to begin a democracy conference. Even so, it is very much in keeping with what the Biden administration means when it says that the United States is fighting a global battle for democracy against autocracy. Understanding the counterintuitive meaning of Biden’s slogan is important both to see why this framing is so powerful among American leaders and why it is so dangerous to the health of global democracy.
The most pressing strategic challenge facing our vision [of a free, open, prosperous, and secure world] is from powers that layer authoritarian governance with a revisionist foreign policy. It is their behavior that poses a challenge to international peace and stability—especially waging or preparing for wars of aggression, actively undermining the democratic political processes of other countries, leveraging technology and supply chains for coercion and repression, and exporting an illiberal model of international order. Many non-democracies join the world’s democracies in forswearing these behaviors. Unfortunately, Russia and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) do not.
The salient division in the world, then, is not between democracies and autocracies but between countries that support the existing international order and the two autocracies—China and Russia—that are seeking to reshape it in illiberal ways.
But this raises some awkward questions:
One: Which side are autocratic U.S. allies on if, like Saudi Arabia and UAE, they wage wars of aggression, undermine the democratic political processes of other countries, and use technology for repression?
Two: Which side are democratic countries on if they support China’s efforts to reshape the international order? This is quite common, because many of the things that China does to “tilt the global playing field to its benefit” are things that poor countries—democratic or not—must do if they are to achieve economic development.
Three: Which side is the U.S. on? Because the U.S. violates the rules-based order and engages in coercion on a regular basis. Leaving aside a long list of examples under earlier presidents and looking only at the Biden administration, the U.S. is currently incapacitating the world trade dispute resolution system; supporting Russia’s argument that it can exempt itself from any economic agreement (in this case, throttling Ukraine’s trade) merely by invoking national security; building a comprehensive blockade on Chinese businesses’ access to certain advanced technologies; seeking to destroy China’s most successful private multinational company, Huawei; and maintaining an extraterritorial sanctions regime that has done terrible damage to Iran’s economy.
The United States welcomes as client states outright autocracies like Saudi Arabia or Egypt and deteriorating democracies like India, Israel, and Italy in order to turn back the huge threat that administration officials think a powerful China poses to the principle of democracy itself.
So the particular list of allegations against Russia and China, which does not apply equally to both countries, also fails to clearly distinguish the “democracy” team from the “autocracy” team. But the Biden administration has a deeper rationale in mind. As Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, “China is the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it.” Ultimately the United States welcomes as client states outright autocracies like Saudi Arabia or Egypt and deteriorating democracies like India, Israel, and Italy in order to turn back the huge threat that administration officials think a powerful China poses to the principle of democracy itself.
What is the nature of that threat? Often the administration accuses China of exporting its authoritarian model in the form of surveillance technology—technology that companies in the U.S. and allied states also sell. Or they highlight China’s campaign to change “democratic norms” at the United Nations. For example, China has sought to elevate collective rights, such as the right to economic development, to the same level as individual rights.
Members of the Biden administration have argued that such a goal would dilute individual rights and empower autocratic states to speak in the name of their people. This perspective, however, is not shared by the overwhelming majority of democratic developing countries. They stand on this issue and many others alongside their authoritarian counterparts, against the opposition of the rich democratic countries. In U.S. political culture, the interests of wealthy countries are often represented as the interests of democratic countries.
Beijing also rejects the “universal values” that the U.S. champions and seeks respect for “the diversity of civilizations,” including those that do not recognize liberal democratic rights and freedoms. The Biden administration has a point here—China does seek to overturn the rhetorical dominance that liberal values have enjoyed in recent decades—but the presence of numerous autocrats and aspiring autocrats in U.S.-led coalitions is eloquent proof that liberal rhetoric does little to restrain authoritarians.
Finally, Biden has made the point that if Chinese authoritarianism is stable and prosperous while U.S. democracy is dysfunctional and stagnant, democracy will lose its appeal around the world. But it is hard to find examples of this happening in practice. China’s recent history of Party-state rule sets it apart from most other countries, making it unpersuasive as a model. And third countries are perfectly capable of valuing partnership with China without losing faith in democracy. In a 2022 survey of African leaders, China was preferred over the United States (46% to 9%) as a partner on infrastructure development; yet the U.S. was chosen over China (32% to 1%) when it comes to cooperation around governance and the rule of law.
The idea that a popularity contest between two powerful countries is what determines the choice of political regime in other countries is, in any case, both implausible and insulting.
Why, then, is the idea that China poses a potentially existential threat to democracy so widespread in Washington? Because over the last two decades, the ideological hegemony of neoliberalism (“free markets and free individuals”)—which underwrote the narrow concept of democracy that drove the Third Wave of democratization and supplied the intellectual foundations for the U.S. political elite in recent decades—has disintegrated at home and abroad.
This ideology’s loss of legitimacy is a global phenomenon, but in Washington it was experienced as the outcome of a series of increasingly disastrous setbacks for U.S. economic and military aspirations, starting with the dotcom crash and 9/11, ramifying through the failures of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, the Iraq War, and the Doha Round of WTO negotiations, and culminating in the 2008 global financial crisis and the Great Recession.
The sense of crisis only grew over the following decade as previously marginalized political currents represented by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders suddenly posed a serious challenge to the political status quo in the United States.
For mainstream American political leaders, the three essential parts of the post-Cold War global system—U.S. military hegemony, free market globalization, and a specifically neoliberal vision of democracy and human rights—were inseparably interwoven
For mainstream American political leaders, the three essential parts of the post-Cold War global system—U.S. military hegemony, free market globalization, and a specifically neoliberal vision of democracy and human rights—were inseparably interwoven. Now referred to in Washington as the “rules-based international order,” a challenge to any part of the package is considered an attack on the whole, and American leaders are particularly sensitive to such challenges given the fragility of the whole system.
Today’s China, though a product of that very system, was also the most prominent country to reject liberal democracy and U.S. hegemony. And in the years since 2008, it has been a step or two ahead of other countries—in some ways constructive and in some horrifying—as every country moves beyond the system. So even though China has been little involved in the specific U.S. failures of the last two decades, it nonetheless stands in as a symbol of all the setbacks that U.S. power and ideology have faced.
Though China’s success within the “rules-based international order” has given it a major stake in sustaining and shoring up significant parts of the system, that success has also made China far more powerful than more antagonistic countries like Russia or North Korea. Because Washington sees China as both hostile and powerful, the image of a menacing China offers a shared focus for U.S. leaders that could overcome the debilitating partisan divisions afflicting the country’s governance—a point that Biden has made manytimes.
So it’s true that the Biden administration does not see the world as divided between democracies and autocracies. But it does see the world as divided between democracy in the abstract—understood to be the same as U.S. military and economic power and the alliances supporting it—and autocracy in the abstract, represented by the only peer competitor facing the United States, China.
This emerging consensus in Washington is driven by insecurity and defensiveness rather than a serious analysis of the real forces endangering democracy around the world. As such, U.S. leaders have neglected the single most important question: is international conflict and geopolitical bloc formation likely to nourish democracy—or will it strengthen in every country the most threatening authoritarian political currents, namely militarism, nationalism, and nativism?
Indonesia’s Papua police chief Inspector-General Mathius D Fakhiri has called for action to ensure that “security disturbances” in the Puncak Jaya highlands do not widen in the face of escalating attacks by pro-independence militants.
“For Puncak, we will take immediate action,” he said.
According to General Fakhiri, attacks by the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) had happened repeatedly since early 2023.
A number of attacks had caused casualties with soldiers, police, and civilians.
General Fakhiri urged civilians not to travel to places far from the observation of security forces, both the police and the Indonesian Military (TNI).
“I have also called on TPNPB members to immediately cooperate with all stakeholders, while providing security guarantees so that security disturbances do not recur,” General Fakhiri said.
Cited incidents
He cited these “disturbances” in Puncak Regency:
On January 23, 2023, an armed group shot dead a motorcycle taxi driver on the Ilame Bridge, Wako Village, Gome District.
On January 24, 2023, armed groups attacked a member of the Indonesian military (TNI) at Sinak Market, Sinak District.
On February 18, 2023, armed groups burned down a house and engaged in a shootout with security forces in Ilaga.
On March 3, 2023, armed groups attacked a TNI post and shot dead one TIN soldier and a civilian in Pamebut Village, Yugu Muak District. However, TPNPB claimed that the civilian was shot by security forces.
On March 22, 2023, armed groups shot dead a motorcycle taxi driver at the Kimak road junction, Ilaga District.
General Fakhiri also reminded his forces not to respond excessively to the burning of houses and the Gome District Office, Puncak Regency, Central Papua Province last Tuesday.
Arson ‘a strategy’
According to him, such arson was a strategy of the militants to provoke the security forces into pursuing them
“I ask the officers in the field not to respond excessively. Because usually the motive for the West Papua National Liberation Army armed group to burn is hoping that the officers will respond and then be shot at,” General Fakhiri said.
“I have reminded every rank, if there is an incident in the afternoon or evening do not respond immediately. Wait for the afternoon, then respond and carry out crime scene processing,” he said.
General Fakhiri said that the series of incidents in several vulnerable areas was motivated by an attempt to show the existence of each armed group.
He considered that the various attacks were uncoordinated.
“That’s why I hope the authorities in the field can scrutinise them well. Except for the incidents in Nduga and Lanny Jaya, of course it is of more concern, because it can interfere with the efforts of the authorities to rescue the Susi Air pilot who is currently still being held hostage by the Egianus Kogoya group,” he said.
New Zealand hostage pilot Phillip Merhtens was captured by a TPNPB group on February 7 and has remained a captive since.
Meanwhile, the United Liberation Movement of West Papua (ULMWP) has claimed that Indonesian authorities have arrested 32 Papuans taking part in fund-raising for the Vanuatu tropical cyclones.
Words matter when telling the story of West Papua’s continuing struggle for independence.
Recently, New Zealand media carried reports of the kidnapping of a New Zealand pilot by a militant West Papuan group allied to the independence struggle.
Phillip Mehrtens, a pilot for Susi Air, was abducted by independence fighters from the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB), the armed wing of the Free Papua Movement, at a remote highlands airstrip on February 7.
Unfortunately, the language used by mainstream media reports has been falling into line with Indonesian government depictions of the Free Papua Movement.
While The Guardian and Al Jazeera referred to them as “independence fighters,” they also used the term rebels.
So did RNZ and Reuters, which also used the word “separatists”. “Independence fighters” or “freedom fighters” should have been the preferred terms.
We do not condone violent action, but the West Papuans are fighting for their freedom from decades of brutal Indonesian occupation. They deserve recognition for what they are, not what Indonesia deems them to be.
Dr Philip Cass is convenor of the Catholic Church’s International Peace and Justice Committee in Auckland and editor of Whāia te Tika newsletter.
Indonesian security forces in Papua last week launched an offensive against the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) command holding New Zealand pilot Philip Mehrtens hostage, RNZ Pacific can confirm.
The operation was launched at 1am local time on Thursday, March 23, in Nduga.
It triggered a retaliatory attack from the pro-independence fighters with several casualties now confirmed by both sides.
The TPNPB issued a statement on Sunday confirming the attack and said the operation violated the New Zealand government’s request for “no violence”.
The rebel group said their district commander in Nduga, Egianus Kogoya, who led the capture of Mehrtens, was among those attacked by Indonesian forces.
They said one of their members was killed during the attack, but also claimed they had shot four Indonesian security personnel, killing one soldier and one police officer.
It is not clear at this stage if Mehrtens — who has been held captive for the last 50 days — was present in the jungle hideout which was targeted.
Indonesian security forces launch attack on West Papua National Liberation Army rebels holding NZ pilot hostage near Nduga. Image: RNZ Pacific
Verified by Human Rights Watch
Some details of the joint statement from the political and militant wing of the West Papua Freedom movement (OPM) about the attack have been corroborated by Human Rights Watch Indonesia.
“I have verified that statement by checking what the Indonesian police and also Papuan police have reported,” Andreas Harsono told RNZ Pacific.
Speaking from Jakarta, the human rights watch researcher said there had been a series of clashes between Indonesian security forces and Indigenous Papuan militant groups.
He said the conflict has been ongoing in the central and highlands Papua region over the past week.
“It is confirmed that it began with the attack against a West Papua National Liberation Army’s so-called headquarters — I guess this is a jungle hideout — on Thursday, March 23 1am,” Andreas Harsono said.
The struggle for West Papuan independence has been raging for 60 years since Indonesian paratroopers invaded the region while it was still a Dutch colony.
RNZ Pacific has contacted the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs for comment.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
US President Joe Biden (right) meets with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (left) during the AUKUS summit at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego California on 13 March 2023. Image: RNZ Pacific/Jim Watson/AFP
“But it is what it is,” he said of the tripartite arrangement.
‘Escalation of tension’
“We’ve already seen it will lead to an escalation of tension, and we’re not happy with that as a region.”
Other regional leaders who have publicly expressed concerns about the deal include Solomon Islands PM Manasseh Sogavare, Tuvalu’s Foreign Minister Simon Kofe and Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu.
With Cook Islands set to host this year’s PIF meeting in October, Brown has hinted that the “conflicting” nuclear submarine deal is expected to be a big part of the agenda.
“The name Pacific means ‘peace’, so to have this increase of naval nuclear vessels coming through the region is in direct contrast with that,” he said.
“I think there will be opportunities where we will individually and collectively as a forum voice our concern about the increase in nuclear vessels.”
Brown said “a good result” at the leaders gathering “would be the larger countries respecting the wishes of Pacific countries.”
“Many are in opposition of nuclear weapons and nuclear vessels,” he said.
“The whole intention of the Treaty of Rarotonga was to try to de-escalate what were at the time Cold War tensions between the major superpowers.”
“This Aukus arrangement seems to be going against it,” he added.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
EDGE Group PJSC (‘The Group’ or ‘EDGE’), one of the world’s leading advanced technology and defence groups, has announced the acquisition of UAE-based TRUST International Group (‘TRUST’), a defence trading specialist and major supplier of premium solutions to the UAE Armed Forces and security establishments. TRUST will join EDGE within its Trading & Mission Support […]
WATCH | A masterclass by 
contributes to enabling Israel’s unchecked occupation & must also be condemned/accounted for 
